Hi Ralph,
Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>>
>> the point is, what do we gain by a change to SLF4J? For simple
>> components
>> like the ones in Apache Commons it is enough to have one logging
>> facade.
>> There was a major effort to resolve any problem with CL 1.1.1. Most
>> of its
>> bad reputation was a result of Tomcat using CL itself. Tomcat is
>> using JUL
>> now and I really bet SLF4J would suffer from the same problems if
>> used as
>> base of a JEE server. Additionally, since you can use SLF4J as direct
>> replacement, every user is free to do so.
>>
> Valid points. The main issue I have with Commons Logging is just that
> it is too minimal. But that can easily be addressed. But I do have a
> couple of comments.
> 1. The code was already changed from using Commons Logging as it does
> in trunk to use java.util.logging. Both Oliver and I have stated that
> we dislike that and want to change it to a facade.
I've stated the same.
> So it isn't a
> matter of changing it versus leaving it alone.
Yes, for me it's more a matter of reverting that change ;-)
> 2. SLF4J isn't a "direct" replacement for Commons Logging. The APIs
> aren't exactly the same.
I thought jcl-over-slf4j (or so) is used for that.
My main question stays: What does SLF4J offer that we have to use now for
CC? The last time I've checked (well, it must have been CC 1.3 or so),
logging was used only in one or two places at all anyway.
And Rahul's argument about some consistency between the commons component is
also valid, especially now with CC depending (optionally) on VFS ...
- Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org